Jump to content

Dslyecxi

Members
  • Content Count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

core_pfieldgroups_2

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You could shorten the range by changing STMG_MapGestures_MaxRange in a mission/framework/minimod from the default of 7 to something smaller. Making it larger isn't advised, but smaller shouldn't hurt. In our context, I chose 7 meters because it allows us to brief a squad-sized element without having to form a too-tight huddle.
  2. Uh... nope. That's not how it works. Never has worked like that. The person spreading that information in the past was misinformed and corrected.
  3. The censorship of TG was really something to behold. It took time to notice it, back in the early days of interacting with them, but it became one of those aspects that once noticed, you'd see it everywhere and continually. It'd be easy to write in detail about what they did that left them in the situation they're in now, but it's academic at this point and efforts are best spent on more productive matters. The important thing is that UO is what TG could have been, and so long as TG operates with the administration it has and their views on censorship/suppression, xenophobia, and similar, their Arma section will continue to drift along on life support. That the UO founders objected to the TG methods and acted to form a community that extolled the principles that TG had either suppressed or corrupted was inevitable and long in coming.
  4. The free version's available now on my site. I also did a short video to talk about it and the other versions available:
  5. My newest tactical guide has launched as part of the Deluxe Edition of Arma 3. I've put some further details about it (and future release plans - including print and free versions) on my site here. Hope you guys enjoy it!
  6. The TLDR of this is that the more support is shown for backwards-compatibility from the general Arma community, the more likely BIS will pay attention and allocate resources towards it. Voting this particular ticket up is the best way to express that interest right now, and helps pave the way towards A2/OA content being converted over in a high-quality fashion.
  7. It's really fascinating to read the sorts of issues UO runs into with STHUD, considering that they're not things we observe at ST. I suppose some of the differences could be: We use it as a fireteam HUD, not as a squad HUD. The fireteam leader is the guiding element for the fireteam, making it a simple matter to maintain a rough formation. We aren't formation nazis. If someone tried to force a ShackTac formation to be 'perfect' to the point of browbeating people, that person would be taken aside and talked to and you would not see a repeat performance. Because of our pragmatic approach towards formations, there is no pressure on a ShackTac member to stare intently at their HUD to try to stay in textbook-perfect formation. We emphasize scanning visually instead and use simple radio or voice calls to indicate movement. I think there are quite a few posts in this thread that indicate a backwards approach towards solving the problems you seem to believe exist. If people are absolutely fixated on the HUD and can't control themselves, why not find the source of that? It seems evident that it's coming from some people being complete formation nazis, and through their actions they're making players believe that formations are more important than common sense and scanning. Wouldn't addressing that be a smarter move? Ensuring that when people are browbeating others about formations, that they're put in their place? Or ensuring that players understand what the point of the STHUD is and that they shouldn't be watching it constantly? There have been so many posts over the years of UO where someone is trying to scapegoat some aspect of the modset or rules/regs as being The Source Of UO's Problems. This looks like another search for a golden bullet. Seems wiser to invest that energy in the fundamental aspects of accepted behavior that are acting as the source of at least some of what's being posted as the problems.
  8. Available from DevHeaven here, tested working with A3/ACRE, same functionality as the A2 version: https://dev-heaven.net/attachments/download/20370/130323_arma3_stacre_volume_v1.7z
  9. That 'copy' feature is strictly to pull the classnames in use. You would need to interpret that array to use it. A3 introduces new commands for gear - such as addVest, addUniform, addGoggles, etc, and you'd use the relevant class with the relevant command. It's not a terribly difficult scripting task to make a function that would interpret that array and assign gear, I just don't have time right now to look into it. There are a bunch of scripters here that could handle the task, though. It's pretty straightforward insofar as the core gear goes (but excluding the weapons, which become slightly more complicated IIRC, though I think there's a new bis_fnc_addweapon that streamlines that as well).
  10. I guess this was inevitable. If it's your intent to poll me at every charter-given opportunity, I'm afraid you'll only get a response from me this first time. What I say here can be referenced in the future whenever the urge strikes to try again. I'll address the original post first, then move around a bit from there. Regarding point #1 - you are correct, I do not play at UO. As noted by others in the thread, this is not by itself a mortal sin against the community. There are different reasons for why I do not play - most of it boils down to 'being busy', and some of it historically has been because our modsets are juuuuust enough different that when I do have time to play, I don't have time to sort that aspect out. I think this is a generally weak point, though, so let's move on. Point #2 - I suppose this depends on what you define "any discussion or voting of policies" as being. I vote where I feel I have sufficient knowledge to make it meaningful. This means that I stay out of many votes, certainly. I would like to think that this is seen as a better approach than simply voting for the sake of voting regardless of knowledge on any particular issue or drama. I give my counsel when asked, but due to my own personal responsibilities, I am not able to spend time on the forums debating various things. I speak my mind in the UO Officer chat when I feel I have something to contribute to the discussion, and I speak with UO members directly for various reasons relating to how the community works, my perspective on things, and anything that I can contribute that might be helpful. Point #3 - I was given regularship as someone who was around at the founding of UO, as well as someone who had encouraged people to create their own community if the one they were part of wasn't treating them correctly (TG). I won't name names, but if they feel like speaking up, they are welcome to. This goes back to a year-plus prior to the foundation of UO. My regularship was granted by a consensus of the founding members. I believe it has been earned by my actions both then and since, and I see no reason to lose it on the technicality of it not having been a voted action. Point #4 - I stand by that post. The UO forums are full of topics that, when read, provide validation of my opinion. I run my own group, I am familiar with our ethos, and I keep up with UO and am familiar with how the community works here. I think I am entitled to speak my mind. The notion that the post shows "disdain" towards UO is an issue of the preconceived notions of the reader, and not something that exists in the text or intent behind the post. Point #5 - I post my content to UO because it is a large community with many 'familiar faces' and is operated in a fashion that doesn't freak out and censor/pull posts that come from the "outside world", as e.g. TacticalGamer does (to include very recently regarding Arma3). There is one mod that I created for ShackTac and intended to keep internal - st_acre_volume - but went out of my way to turn into a modular format that I could share with "other communities". To be very specific - I was asked to share it with UO, and I did so due to the relationship that exists between the 'officer' levels of our two communities. Had I not been part of UO since the founding, it's possible I would not have seen the value in doing that. So, yes - if I was not a Regular, if I did not have my history with UO and the founders, it is likely that a very significant mod would not have shown up for UO. Is anything like this possible in the future? I don't know, but that's what happened in the past. Now, with those out of the way, let's talk simply about what Regularship means to me, and what I mean to UO. Regularship gives me an opportunity to help influence UO's direction, however small. It allows me to see the workings of the community in a more candid and honest fashion. As someone who has repeatedly encouraged people to check out UnitedOperations as an Arma community (starting with TTP2, with this post being more recent, not to mention repeatedly suggesting UO as a community on my blog, through my youtube comments, etc) , it is important for personal ethical reasons that I know what I'm recommending people to. ShackTac has an applicant level that is far beyond our ability to handle - I would prefer those people we can't accept end up somewhere that can provide them a quality experience, and UO has seemed like the best option for that. Thus - I write of UO as a place to check out. I will not pretend to hold UO hostage about that facet. I am explaining how I operate - being able to 'see inside' is important for personal reasons for me. If I lost regularship, I would probably cool on UO in general and not so readily recommend it. Let me be very clear: This is not said with the intention of swaying your vote. This is who I am and how I work, and now you know part of why Regularship matters to me. If that matters to you - that's very much a secondary consideration. Krause has been around to see what he's speaking of. He is on the mark with these comments. I would take it a bit further - the server config that UO uses, the one which has allowed for 100+ playercounts, is based off of a ShackTac one that I shared, one which my group put significant time and effort into validating. My relationship with Impulse 9, for instance, is a positive one that has helped both communities through exchanges of knowledge regarding our servers, issues with the Arma netcode, and so forth. At times this happens in the admin chat, with others, and at times it is more directly spoken. The playercounts that UO can get to - ShackTac has gone before them. We have learned much, we've shared it with UO, and I don't think anyone would argue that the result has been anything other than net positive for both of our communities. Aside from the technical, I have shared my experiences as the founder of ShackTac with regards to how things work for us, my thoughts on how UO operates, etc. To the person asking how often this happens - earlier this morning would be one example of it. My motivation regarding UO is simple. I've stated it above, but to be more clear: I think that it's a shame that there are so few public places to play Arma that aren't corrupted, run by wackjobs, or just generally unpleasant. UO was founded for this very reason, after all. In my position as an "Arma community figure" and ShackTac leader, I get to hear far too much from far too many about how they've looked around and been unable to find something public to satisfy their Arma gaming desires. Before UO was founded, I had the idea to even try to do a public side to ShackTac - simply because I was fed up with the existing options - but thankfully UO happened shortly after that idea and I never had to 'subject' myself to the endeavour. I think UO succeeding is a positive thing for the Arma community at large, and I think that as a Regular I have done plenty to help contribute towards that. Whether it's visible to you or not is missing the point - I haven't been doing any of this to chest-thump or gain status in the broader community, I've simply done it because it felt like the right thing to do and I wanted to be part of the solution. What has happened in UO over time, particularly recently, is unfortunate. The witch-hunt mentality, the scapegoating, the endless votes to remove this person from that position or strip this person of their title - it's not conducive to a positive community atmosphere. I've expressed this sentiment before, to the officers of the community. I question the motives of the initiator of this poll, as others have in this thread. Whoever they are, they've now begun a witch-hunt against me. To recap, you are witch-hunting someone who has always supported UO, has gone out of their way to provide invaluable lessons-learned and technical information to help further UO's causes, who has released meaningful content like stacre_volume specifically on the request of UO Officers, with the intention of helping to further UO's gameplay, and someone who has directed literally thousands of players towards UO. You are attempting to strip me of a title that has most certainly been earned and is certainly deserved. Why? If my name goes from green to pale yellow, what have any of you gained? Just as you shouldn't blame STHUD for the state of gameplay on the servers, you certainly shouldn't be trying to "house clean" me simply because what I do isn't always visible or obvious to the broader community. If you're looking to clean up UO or fix things that are perceived as broken, there are a number of places you could start. Removing me isn't one of them.
  11. I ended up releasing this due to popular demand. You can read more about it on my site. This is a slightly improved version of the menu from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLIPW0oIvm8
  12. The scapegoating of STHUD as the reason for why your house is in disarray is pretty remarkable to read. Maybe take that somewhere else, as it's more about your community than our addon, and leave this thread for discussion relevant to the addon itself?
  13. I'd love to see this get voted on. I'd cook up a nice bowl of popcorn and everything, sit back, and enjoy the show.
  14. This implies that it's a technological thing, but that's not the intent. It's an abstracted representation of real-world human sensory inputs that are not conveyed through a mouse/keyboard/PC screen interface. So in short, no.
  15. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah, that's not happening.
×
×
  • Create New...